< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
|Aug-22-12|| ||James D Flynn: If Black could achieve a position where the White the White K is on f2 and he can move his K to f4, he wins the White pawn on h3. Winning the h3 P does not necessarily win the game because if White then plays Kf2 the reply Kh2 leads to either the loss of the both f and h pawns or a repletion with the Black shuttling back and forth between h2 and h1 or a stalemate with the White K shuttling between g1 and h1. However. after Kg4 Black wins by Kg3 and h3, h2 saccing the h pawn to put his K on e1. Step 1 to achieve the opposition on f4. Black has 5 squares from which he can move Kf4: e3,e4, e5, f5,g5. White has 3 square from which he can move to f2: e1, f1, g1 The immediate tussle will involve a K dance between these squares. e.g 55…. Ke3 56.Ke1 Kf4(n t f2+ 57.Kf1 forces either the stalemate or the loss of the f pawn when Black has no winning chances) 58.Kf1 ant the position repeats. So for each of the 5 squares adjacent to f4 that the Black K is on , White must map a square for his K. Black pairs Black K first and White K includng the critical opposition (f4,f2), (e3, e1), (e4, f1), (e5,e1 or g1),(f5,g1 or e1) ,(g5,f1 ). Let’s try a dance starting with distant opposition 55…..Kf5 56.Ke1, Ke5(now White cannot move to either e1 or g1) 57.Kf1 Ke4 58,Ke1 Ke3 59.Kf1 f2 60.Kg2 Ke2 61.Kh2 f1=R (not f1=Q stalemate) 62. Kg2 Rf8 and wins .|
|Aug-22-12|| ||James D Flynn: I agree with ONCE that either Ke5 or Kf5 are equally winning. I also liked his explanation better than my square mapping, which is usually more useful when the triangulation involves long pawn chains(I used to play the French defense a lot).|
|Aug-22-12|| ||Ghuzultyy: I think this exact position was given in Yasser Seirawan's Winning Chess Endings. Nice example for triangulation.|
|Aug-22-12|| ||gambler: This is not so much a tactical puzzle but some sort of end-game technique trainer.|
Once you got the zugzwang pattern down, it is actually pretty simple.
|Aug-22-12|| ||Crowaholic: <Abdel Irada>: In your line (3.2), 61. ..Kf3 is superior to ..Ke1: 61. Kh2 Kf3 62. Kh1 f1=Q+ 63. Kh2 Qg2#|
|Aug-22-12|| ||Eggman: <<If now 58...Ke1 or Kg1 then Ke3 wins the opposition and promotes the f Pawn which leaves only 58...Kf2 Kf4 etc.>>|
Not to quibble, but please note, for future reference, that '...' before a move indicates that the move was made by Black. '58.Ke1' would mean that White played Ke1, whereas '58...Ke1' would indicate that Black had played Ke1. Thus the above should read "if now 58.Ke1" and "which leaves only 58.Kf2 Kf4 etc."
|Aug-22-12|| ||morfishine: Thanks <Patriot> for looking at that. I shuffled the pieces back and forth and figured <55...K5> was the move. Turns out it was!|
|Aug-22-12|| ||Tiggler: <EXIDE> <This is too difficult for a Tuesday puzzle. Anyway thanks to Once I am getting an inkling of the process needed to win.>|
Regrettably, and unusually, there is a misleading error in <Once>'s post. After his second diagram, he states that Black can win by either ...Kg3 or ...Ke3, after White retreats from f2. Not if W retreats to f1: then only Kg3 will work, and it only works because of the possibility of capturing on h3. Without the h-pawns on the board, Black can triangulate forever and never be able to promote the f-pawn.
|Aug-22-12|| ||TheBish: Alburt vs Kasparov, 1978|
Black to play (55...?) "Medium/Easy"
The key here is for Black to lose a move, using triangulation, since White to move in the diagrammed position would lose: 1. Kf2 Kf4 followed by 2...Kg3, or 1. Ke1 Ke3 2. Kf1 f2 etc. So how do we lose a move, and what the heck is triangulation, you might be asking?
55...Kf5! Distant opposition!
56. Ke1 (Kg1 is similar) Ke5! 57. Kf1 Ke4
Now it is the same position from the diagram, with White to play and lose, as described above. Funny, but I struggled with this until I realized that Black could easily triangulate, i.e. move the king over three squares while White shifts his king between two squares, thus "losing" a move.
|Aug-22-12|| ||Tiggler: <Jimfromprovidence>: <One must be careful to say that the success of triangulation as a tactic is very specific to the position.
The reason the puzzle position is winning for black is that he uses triangulation to win white's h pawn and then white cannot defend the advance of both pawns.|
<Tiggler> pointed out that black cannot win without his h pawn.>
JfP, thanks for your post. We should also point out the black cannot win if the h-pawns are on h2 and h3, instead of h3 and h4. Only if this is known can one understand Kasporov's maneuvering between moves 42 and 45, which force Alburt to advance 46.h3 .
|Aug-22-12|| ||Tiggler: Back in 2004, <mahmoudkubba> asked: <What were the loosing moves for white any how ? any suggestions?? in the whole game I mean??>|
I don't know about the whole game, but White's last chance to draw might have been 46.g3, instead of h3. The position at this point is way too difficult for me to solve, but maybe others can do it, with an engine if necessary?
|Aug-22-12|| ||Alex56171: <Memethecat> You noticed a detail? By Nalimov Tables, all seven possible moves of the black king wins the game. Some in 16, others in 18 moves. It is a broader concept than triangulation, isn't it?|
|Aug-22-12|| ||Tiggler: <Alex56171: <Memethecat> You noticed a detail? By Nalimov Tables, all seven possible moves of the black king wins the game. Some in 16, others in 18 moves. It is a broader concept than triangulation, isn't it?>|
Moves other than 53...Ke5 and ...Kd5 are wasted moves. They don't throw away the win, but they only win after B discovers the correct plan! (I had a typo in my first attempt, and deleted it. In case you saw e4 and d4, instead of e5 and d5)
|Aug-22-12|| ||tivrfoa: Very cool endgame after 41. Kxg1|
|Aug-22-12|| ||Tiggler: <tivrfoa: Very cool endgame after 41. Kxg1>|
I agree, but what about 39...Qd1+. That was 17 moves before our puzzle position.
Did Kasparov know the ending was winning after he forced the Qs to come off? He must have thought so, at least. Awesome.
|Aug-22-12|| ||SuperPatzer77: It's almost like the game between Yasser Seirawan vs Garry Kasparov in 1983. He uses the brilliant triagulation method against White (Lev Alburt) like he (Black) did against Yasser Seirawan (White) in 1983. See website link below:|
Seirawan vs Kasparov, 1983
|Aug-22-12|| ||Tiggler: Tiggler: <Alex56171: <Memethecat> You noticed a detail? By Nalimov Tables, all seven possible moves of the black king wins the game. Some in 16, others in 18 moves. It is a broader concept than triangulation, isn't it?>
Moves other than 53...Ke5 and ...Kd5 are wasted moves. They don't throw away the win, but they only win after B discovers the correct plan! (I had a typo in my first attempt, and deleted it. In case you saw e4 and d4, instead of e5 and d5)|
After all that, I still had errors: I meant 53...Ke5 and ...Kf5, of course.
|Aug-22-12|| ||chillowack: Does anyone know what tournament this is from? It says "Ch URS 1978," but according to this page (http://graeme.50webs.com/chesschamp...) Alburt didn't actually play in the 1978 USSR Championship (possibly he had already defected to America by that point). So what tournament was this?|
|Aug-23-12|| ||perfidious: <chillowack> It was from the Daugavpils 'Otborochnii', from which first place qualified for the final, held in late 1978. Kasparov went 9-4 for clear first (+4 -1 =8). The page below calls this a semi-final, but that wasn't the case: in earlier days, 4-6 players would have qualified from such an event.|
|Aug-23-12|| ||Phony Benoni: Speaking of the Semi-Final:
Game Collection: USSR First League, Ashkhabad, 1978
|Aug-24-12|| ||Abdel Irada: <Alex56171: <Memethecat> You noticed a detail? By Nalimov Tables, all seven possible moves of the black king wins the game. Some in 16, others in 18 moves. It is a broader concept than triangulation, isn't it?>|
The concept is broad, and it's called coordinate square theory. As I said, this is a fairly simple example of it, and triangulation is sufficient to win it. But there are some fascinating studies in which mapping is really essential: With more pawns, one often has to remember, e.g., that if the defender's king moves to c8, the attacker must move his to f5 to preserve the win.
|Sep-07-12|| ||tivrfoa: <Tiggler> Probably. He had a very strong endgame.|
|Sep-07-12|| ||perfidious: < chillowack: ....Alburt didn't actually play in the 1978 USSR Championship (possibly he had already defected to America by that point)....>|
Alburt defected in 1979.
|Sep-07-12|| ||RookFile: The position after 28....Qf2 must be drawable for white, if not easy. 29. h3 comes to mind, obviously Alburt was concerned with black setting up ....Be5 and Qg3. However, even if black gets all that in, white can run with Kg1. Maybe he should have played 29. h3 anyway. I realize that b2 drops, but white can actively put his queen on d5 or something. That would be a real tough ending for black to win.|
|Dec-20-18|| ||MrJafari: Does an extra pawn results to win here?|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·